get_flow_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what status values may be returned, whether authentication is required, or how errors are handled. Only the word 'Get' and context of 'legacy bridge workflow record' hint at read behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or wasteful phrasing. Every word contributes to identifying the resource and action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the minimum viable context. It does not explain what a 'status' response includes or what 'legacy bridge' implies for behavior, leaving gaps that an agent might need to infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'The execution/trigger ID from a previous trigger_flow call'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of a legacy bridge workflow record'), making the tool's core function clear. It distinguishes itself from trigger_flow by focusing on status retrieval rather than launching a workflow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like trigger_flow or list_flows. It implies usage after triggering a flow, but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or which sibling to prefer in ambiguous cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.